Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 22:14:07 +0100 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: Jeremy Messenger <mezz.freebsd@gmail.com> Cc: Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org>, "ports@freebsd.org" <ports@freebsd.org>, Kenta Suzumoto <kentas@hush.com> Subject: Re: The vim port needs a refresh Message-ID: <CADLo83_xF=HbE0pqLh0pyGwWh=R-7aMKinLUGyBjmNs_Wx9EZw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CADLFtte5-hEoyvSgtUe5K-uO05rj=jE5ro2xujQcjD8PVA3rmw@mail.gmail.com> References: <20130524212318.B967FE6739@smtp.hushmail.com> <CADLo83_AgAH0fARvtoYYmw5UEf7%2B3nEEs6U%2B6%2BhY8r0MbTkWFw@mail.gmail.com> <CADLFtte5-hEoyvSgtUe5K-uO05rj=jE5ro2xujQcjD8PVA3rmw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 28 May 2013 06:08, "Jeremy Messenger" <mezz.freebsd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > On 24 May 2013 22:23, Kenta Suzumoto <kentas@hush.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello all. The editors/vim port is currently a mess and needs some
changes.
> >>
> >> - It fetches almost 700 patches from what seems like a dial-up
connection in AUSTRALIA.
> >>
> >> You might as well be downloading a 1080p movie from a rock in the
north pole, because that's about how fast it is.
> >> This can be very easily avoided by putting all the patches into a
single tarball and hosting it anywhere decent. I've
> >> seen someone in ##freebsd on freenode handing out a tarball with all
the patches many times, and everyone asks
> >> "why isn't this the default? why is some random guy giving me
distfiles?" etc. Seems like a no-brainer.
> >>
> >> - By default, it builds lots of gui stuff that certainly almost no one
wants
> >>
> >> It almost seems like the vim-lite port should be renamed vim and the
vim port should be renamed gvim. I had to
> >> google to come up with this solution, because I can't even disable
that stuff in "make config" (another problem!)
> >>
> >> .if ${.CURDIR}=="/usr/ports/editors/vim"
> >> WITH_VIM_OPTIONS=yes
> >> WITHOUT_X11=yes
> >> .endif
> >>
> >> People shouldn't have to find this hack to be able to install vim
normally (and no, telling them to use vim-lite isn't normal).
> >> I'm surprised that none of these changes have been made yet. I've
heard it's "because the maintainer won't listen to reason"
> >> but I have no way to know if that's the case or not. I also heard bapt@had an optionsNG patch that he wouldn't
> >> integrate into the port for some reason. Please, let's get this stuff
fixed once and for all. None of it requires a large amount
> >> of work on anyone's part.
> >
> > I'm very sad to talk of a fellow developer like this, but I'm afraid
> > the maintainer of vim is a contrarian who thinks he knows better than
> > everyone else on the matter.
> >
> > For years, people have been begging him to get over his fear of
> > OPTIONS, and he sits in the way of progress against almost everyone's
> > wishes.
>
> FYI, the OPTIONS is not required to have. I agree with him pretty much
> everything about the OPTIONS. I have refused to add OPTIONS in any of
> my ports before I gave up a lot of them long time ago. All of his
> thought of OPTIONS are very valid. The OPTIONS still has bugs.
>
> BTW: I always have BATCH=yes in my make.conf, because I hate OPTIONS a
lot.
Putting BATCH=yes in your environment is entirely up to you, but forcing
every user of the ports tree to learn a new way of dealing with certain
ports because "They're mine and they're special" is absolutely wrong.
If you don't like OPTIONS, fix them, but please don't labour under the
misapprehension that users are happy to have an inconsistent ports tree and
unpredictable ports tree on the whim of a few maverick developers.
Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo83_xF=HbE0pqLh0pyGwWh=R-7aMKinLUGyBjmNs_Wx9EZw>